Steven Agnew
North Down · Green Party · Northern Ireland
“We need an independent, open and transparent process for investigating Ministers. I have always failed to understand the opposition to that from some in the House. Given recent events, if the Assembly was to oppose it again today, there would be public anger.”
“This process would involve one commissioner and one independent investigation, rather than a political investigation that, I have no doubt, some at the time called a witch-hunt, as is often said when people are defending their Minister.”
“I am delighted to make a winding-up speech on this debate, which has been the first-ever sole Green Party private Member's motion. Thanks to the election of my colleague, Clare Bailey, we have two Green MLAs, which has increased our ability to use the Assembly privileges to put such suggestions forward.”
“I absolutely agree, Mr Beggs. <BR /> <BR />Another point I will make is about the idea of the distinction between the Minister and the Department. When I was drafting my private Member's Bill, I asked, "Should that say 'Minister' or 'Department'?". The legal advice that I was given was that they are one and the same.”
“If an MLA is alleged to have breached the code, a member of the public can write to the standards commissioner and have their complaint investigated in an independent manner. The result of any investigation is published and can, if required, lead to a debate in the Assembly so that all the issues can be aired.”
“I would argue that it serves neither the Minister nor the public well that we do not have such a process. An individual who seeks to complain will be left frustrated if they feel that their concerns are ignored by those in office, who are supposed to act on their behalf.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,353 lines we hold for Steven Agnew, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 23 of 28.
“I thought that my approach to the Bill, with my amendments, was clear from my speech yesterday, but I feel that I need to make it clearer, given some of the criticism of the amendments that I have tabled. There are different ways to approach the Bill, and each is legitimate. We should then argue the approach that each party has taken. The Ulster Unionist Party has taken the approach that it would amend the Bill but only where it deems that there are no costs, although Mr Wilson highlighted his belief that there were indeed costs to that party's amendments. However, what it sought to do with each of my amendments was criticise them because there were costs.”
“I can give the "where?": it is from the top-up fund that has been set aside for the amendments and proposed changes to the Welfare Reform Bill. That is £70 million; I propose that it is taken out of that.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I will give him credit: I think that he is giving each of the amendments the time that they deserve. He keeps coming back to where we would put our money. It just seems strange to me that a party that is willing to support proposals to reduce corporation tax at a cost of around £330 million per year is struggling over a measure that, in the case of the housing benefit grace period of four weeks, will help people to get back into work. It just seems incongruous that that small amount of money cannot be supported. We are talking about making work pay. This is an amendment to help do exactly that.”
“I will be very brief. As has been pointed out, it has been stated publicly many times that agreement has been secured to have bi-monthly payments here in respect of welfare reform. Why, then, has the Minister not tabled amendments for today to put that in the Bill?”
“The Member is talking about living in the real world, so will he show me where in the Bill those assurances are made? Will he show me where that is laid out in the Bill and the parts that say that that can happen only in those specific circumstances? Will he provide me with that information? He is asserting it with certainty, but it is not in the Bill.”
“There is the potential that the very narrow view of what people need their benefits for, which is that it is needed for food and clothing and that is all, fails to reflect the realities of the lives and financial pressures of people on benefits. Without assurances as to how it would be used, I fear that vouchers are used almost as a penalty and a restriction of freedom on those who are on benefits. I do not believe that people should be punished for being unemployed or disabled or for the many other reasons for having mental ill health. For that reason, I oppose payment in vouchers.”
“The figures I have suggest that 5% of people on the lowest incomes have no access to a bank account. It is a real problem; it does exist, and we need a solution to it. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 74 is about opposition to payment in vouchers. I understand that the wording is that payment "may" be made in vouchers. Again, Mr Beggs laid out some of the reasons why it might be preferable to make payment in vouchers, and the Minister may come back on this in his contribution, but without any assurances as to how and when that would be used, I would be very concerned about that proposal. For example, if you are a parent with children in school, you cannot use vouchers to pay for school trips.”
“Despite, in the circumstances I referred to, letters from the hostel or the organisation that I worked for or letters from social workers, many of our residents were unable to get a bank account. Their situation was one where they got their cheque — in some cases that was an amount of £45 a week paid in a single £90 payment — and then went to "Cash a Cheque" or something of that nature, where they paid a premium to receive their money. The intention of the amendment is to ensure that no one should be paying to receive their benefits. No one who is on the lowest incomes in our society should have to pay a premium to receive that money. We each get our pay paid into our bank account, I am sure, and there is no charge for that. There should not be a charge for those on such low incomes to receive their benefit payment.”
“Amendment No 43 deals with payments in cash. Again, with a petition of concern not tabled and the Assembly minded to support it, this amendment may need some further definition. This goes back to my time working with the homeless. I will give the example of someone on benefits receiving their payment. It has become increasingly onerous to get a bank account because of the burden of proof of address and identity. There may be good reasons for that, but for someone who does not have a driver's licence or a passport, and certainly for someone who lives in a homeless hostel and does not have utility bills, it can be quite difficult. Mr Beggs made a point about why it is preferable to have a bank account, and I completely agree with him, but for some people that is very difficult.”
“I do not understand the rationale for increasing that timeline. The extra costs of disability are virtually immediate, so why would we ask someone to shoulder the burden of those costs without support from the state for a full year? Why would we ask them to demonstrate beyond a year that they are disabled before they get any support? I fail to understand that, and I think that retention of the current system would be preferable in that regard.”
“My proposal is to reduce the nine months to six months, which is the current situation.”
“I suspect that we are in agreement. It is not so much the principle of whether the money should be paid back but how it should be paid back. I would be concerned if the Department had the power simply to withdraw money from people's accounts. It is about how rather than whether money should be paid back, but, as I said, the amendment may need further thought. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 38 and 39 very much concern disability. They are about how long someone's disability should persist before a payment is made. The principle of personal independence payments or disability allowance is about providing support for the extra costs of living with a disability. The proposal in the Bill is for 12 months: three months prior to a claim and nine months afterwards.”
“People should not be punished for the mistakes of the Social Security Agency, but, equally, I accept the point that was made earlier: should a significant overpayment be made, it is unreasonable that the public purse be out of money.”
“That is fair. I cannot recall who outlined it earlier — it may have been Mr Beggs — but the intent is to prevent a blunt clawback when there is an overpayment, with the Department simply extracting money from people who are on a very low income after an overpayment that was the fault of the system rather than the individual and when it is clearly not a fraudulent claim but an overpayment by the Social Security Agency. I have come across circumstances — I go back to my time working with the homeless — where mistakes were made and the clawback was quite excessive and led to significant financial difficulties for those on the receiving end.”
“That is what we condemn people to if we do not give them the benefit of the doubt during the appeal process rather than giving the system the benefit of the doubt. It is certainly my contention that, when people apply for benefits, the vast majority do so genuinely. We know that 40% of assessments are wrong, and we should not punish the people on the end of those mistakes. <BR /> <BR />I do not propose to move amendment No 45. It may require some thought in advance of Further Consideration Stage. Amendment Nos 38 and 39 —”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 44 is about payments pending appeal. I just outlined the number of successful appeals and, therefore, the number of initial decisions that were wrong. My argument is that we should not make people, in some cases, destitute or, certainly, struggle financially while awaiting an appeal, especially when we know that in many cases they will be entitled to the benefits when their appeals succeed. I will read out the details of one case study of somebody whose benefits were stopped pending appeal after such an assessment. Jessica is a 23-year-old woman with mental health problems who was 22 weeks pregnant.”
“If my son in school gets four out of 10 of his questions wrong, I am disappointed. When it is a company paid such exorbitant sums of money to administer work capability assessments, I am more than disappointed; I am horrified at the trauma that people have been put through due to the failures of this company. <BR /> <BR />Previously, the assessments were undertaken by internal departmental medical staff, and, as I said when, I think, Mr Beggs raised the question of cost, one way or another we pay for those medical experts, if that term can be used. Whether they are employed by public agencies or privately, we, the taxpayers, bear the cost. We have seen the record of outsourcing in GB. With outsourcing, you lose control and accountability. The public have already lost trust in the processes. We need to take action to restore that trust.”
“For the benefit of those who observe the Chamber, and want to see what their MLAs are proposing, I will go through why I have tabled each of the amendments. <BR /> <BR />Through amendment Nos 10, 37 and 57, I propose that work capability assessments should be provided by GPs or those employed by the health and social care trusts. This is about learning from the mistakes of others. We have seen this outsourced in GB with disastrous results. Atos has relinquished the contract due to its poor record. It had to pay compensation to the Government after it was accused of failures in quality. Indeed, of 600,000 appeals at a cost of £600 million a year, 40% were successful. That was 40% of people put through the added trauma of appealing their assessment relating to benefits to which they were later deemed entitled.”
“I look forward to seeing the detail of the Stormont Castle agreement on what figures have been used, how they have been calculated and how this top-up system will work. <BR /> <BR />I come back to what I said earlier: these things should go through the Assembly. Whether we are being asked to trust the Minister for Social Development and his officials to get it right through legislation or to trust the parties who are party to the Stormont Castle agreement, this is too big an issue of public importance for it not to be put through the democratic processes of the Assembly. <BR /> <BR />With that in mind, I come to the amendments that I tabled today, every one of which has been subject to a petition of concern. I assume the intent of the DUP is to block them.”
“In various estimates of what the welfare cuts would mean for Northern Ireland, each figure has been above that. NICVA's estimate was that welfare reform cuts would result in a £250 million loss of benefits to the people of Northern Ireland. Some people did not accept that figure. I believe that the last Minister told me that it would be £115 million a year, which is still some way above £70 million. The First Minister, when he was speaking as First Minister and not as DUP leader, said that, eventually, the cost of not implementing welfare reform — in other words, the additional benefit that we would have to pay out — would come to £1 billion a year. Today, as DUP leader, he said that the average would be £70 million a year and that that is exactly what we have budgeted for so nobody need worry. I have heard so many different figures.”
“I thank the Member for her intervention. I will trust her on this occasion that that is indeed a quote from the Sinn Féin ard fheis. I thank her for reading it into the record. <BR /> <BR />Today, we have introduced the Stormont Castle agreement to the public. I put it to the leader of the DUP that there should be full public scrutiny of how the welfare reform proposals will be topped up and what they would look like. I am pleased that we have been given that commitment by various parties. I think that each of the five parties has now given a commitment to publish that, and I look forward to seeing the detail because I am left in a situation again where I face contradictions but am being asked to trust. <BR /> <BR />The top-up in the Budget was £70 million.”
“I have 26 amendments tabled today, and I have been genuine in seeking to amend the Welfare Reform Bill to make it better than the current draft.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. There is a certain amount of revisionism, but that should not be surprising. Yes, I would be willing to sign a petition of concern to block something that will harm the most vulnerable in our society. What has happened since those conversations was that we were told that the Welfare Reform Bill was not coming back to the Assembly, so I did not, when I had so many other issues as leader and sole Member of my party, spend time on a Welfare Reform Bill that, I was told by Sinn Féin, would never see the light of day because it would not implement Tory cuts. Maybe I should not have trusted them, but I took them at their word. Then the Stormont House Agreement happened, and the Welfare Reform Bill was to be back on the table virtually immediately. Yes, I had prepared amendments.”
“I am not sure who I am supposed to trust in that scenario. All that I can really make a decision on and table amendments to, as I have sought to do today, is the Welfare Reform Bill that has been brought to the Northern Ireland Assembly.”
“I am talking about the Bill that is before us. I have read the agreements in the press. I have been assured, and heard assurances from the Minister's predecessor, who is now referred to. I have been told that, in the Stormont House Agreement, one of the agreements is that no one in Northern Ireland will be worse off but, at the same time, I hear parties saying: "We will implement the cap on benefits." You cannot have it both ways. Either 6,600 people will be worse off or they will not; but I am being told both by different parties to the Stormont House Agreement. What I am being asked to do is trust the parties that are signatories to the Stormont House Agreement that either there will be a cap on benefits or that no one will be worse off.”
“It is the mirror image of that legislation and of the principles of the Tory Party, which set out at the beginning of its term in government to make £18 billion worth of welfare cuts. That is what we are proposing to translate into legislation today, if we do not amend it. As we know, the vast majority of amendments brought forward by Members have been subjected to petitions of concern. There are no amendments from the DUP, Sinn Féin or Alliance, which suggests to me that those parties are happy to implement the welfare cuts as laid out by the British Government.”
“<BR /> <BR />I have to question the Stormont House Agreement. We have seen some detail of it, but have we seen the full agreement? Do we know what was agreed behind closed doors? For example, is it a coincidence that, on the day that Sinn Féin signed up to the Tory welfare cuts, it launched the Irish language consultation? Is that a coincidence, or is it part of the Stormont House Agreement? Only time will tell on that front. <BR /> <BR />In his contribution, John O'Dowd said that this is not the final act, not the final curtain — I thought he was going to sing 'My Way'. Thankfully, for us all, he did not, and he could not, because this is not his way: it is not the way of Sinn Féin. This is the Tory way. This is the Tory welfare Bill translated into Northern Ireland legislation.”
“The Democratic People's Republic of Korea, otherwise known as North Korea; the Democratic Republic of Congo; the Democratic Unionist Party. Why is it that those who are least democratic feel the need to shout their democratic principles most loudly? Forty-nine petitions of concern are binding the hands and feet of the Assembly today on this Bill. The Assembly is the body charged with legislating in Northern Ireland, and the Members democratically elected to it have been bound by those petitions of concern and, indeed, bound by the Stormont House Agreement which was made behind closed doors and without public scrutiny. <BR /> <BR />I am an MLA, a Member of the Legislative Assembly. This is the body that should be legislating for welfare reform in Northern Ireland, in full public view and with democratic accountability.”
“Does the Member agree that the measure of a party is not the power that it has but how it uses it?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. The Member outlined that the Stormont Castle agreement detailed how the top-up payments would be spent and what areas of welfare they would cover. To the best of my knowledge, that has not been made public. When Members come forward with amendments, we may well come forward with the top-ups proposed in the Stormont Castle agreement, but without sight of them, we cannot make that judgement. Will the Stormont Castle agreement be published?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I understand his argument. I have worked with people with addictions, so I know the problems. The problem is when we license supermarkets to sell alcohol. You give people food vouchers, but they can still use them on premises that sell alcohol.”
“On a couple of occasions, the Member referred to cost — rightly so — and of course we have to take it into consideration. There is a top-up payment in the budget. My argument is that we should decide as an Assembly where those top-up payments should be in the legislation rather than relying on what comes from the Executive to decide how that money is spent. My proposal is that a top-up payment is budgeted for. I am putting forward amendments, some of which cost money, but the top-up payment should be used to cover them.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. In the past, such assessments were carried out by in-house medical professionals. One way or another, we have to pay for those professionals, and, one way or another, we have to train them through our universities. It is simply a question of oversight and accountability. The record of Atos in England suggests to me that that oversight and accountability was not sufficient.”
“I thank the Minister for her answer and, indeed, for all the work that she has done on the issue. Whilst a code of practice sounds like a way forward, I do not believe that even a well-intentioned circus can meet the needs of wild animals in the conditions in which circus animals are, by necessity, kept, including being transported in cages etc. There have been discussions on an all-island basis, but is there any reason why Northern Ireland cannot itself introduce a ban on wild animals in circuses? If the Minister finds herself in disagreement with her counterpart in the Republic of Ireland, is she willing to act alone?”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. The reason why he has faced persistent questioning on the issue is that similar assurances were given by UK Ministers, but evidence is coming forward that, whilst the policy was not to use incentives, they were being used in practice. Has the Department undertaken any investigations to ensure that the practice of using incentives and league tables is not operating?”
“As the junior Minister said, we have to get the Bill right because it is too important to get wrong. I absolutely agree with that and would add that it is too important to reject at a later stage. The Assembly needs to give its commitment to the Bill. I give my commitment to working with all stakeholders and getting it right.”
“<BR /> <BR />Dolores Kelly made a useful contribution when she said that we must listen to the experts. I agree: we must listen to the experts in the voluntary and statutory sectors. I will be mindful of those who are being asked to change resisting that change. However, where people come forward with genuine proposals that seek to achieve the policy objectives of the Bill in a better way, I will lend my support to such proposals. <BR /> <BR />The first question in my consultation in 2012 was whether the Bill would make cooperation more likely. I believe that it will and that should be the objective. Claire Sugden described this as the most important legislation to reach the House. It certainly is for me. That is why I have worked so long and hard on it and why I will continue to work to get it right.”
“I welcome the overall reduction in the number of Departments, although larger Departments could become more impenetrable. This is the perfect time for this legislation to set a new standard and a new requirement for those Departments to work together, so that as we reform the Departments, we reform the cultures within them and end the silo mentality that Members referred to. <BR /> <BR />What I hear from the Assembly in common today is that the principles of the Bill are right and the important work is now to get the drafting right. I certainly agree with that and am committed to doing that. I am committed to working with the junior Ministers and the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to draft amendments that will strengthen the policy objectives of the Bill.”
“Again, however, I point to England and Scotland, where they have an agreed Programme for Government but still feel that a statutory duty is required. <BR /> <BR />There is a political discussion about the number of Departments. I welcome the junior Minister's statement today that there has been agreement for a Department of education and children. That should help with cooperative working in relation to children, but, again, I look at Scotland, where they have a children's Minister but still require the statutory duty.”
“I will work with OFMDFM to engage with the statutory sector as well as the voluntary sector. As I said, efforts were made to consult widely, but I suspect that that work will be stepped up. Indeed, the junior Minister made it clear that this is only the beginning of the work. I acknowledge that there is much work still to do on the Bill, with consultation and potential amendments. However, I look forward to undertaking that work because it will be worthwhile. <BR /> <BR />A couple of connected issues were raised by Mr McCallister and Mr Nesbitt around an agreed Programme for Government, which might be a better way of improving joined-up working. I agree: an agreed Programme for Government with agreed common cause and corporate responsibility in the Executive is something that my party and I would like to see.”
“This was raised most recently when I was before the Committee. It was not for the want of trying in some regards. When I launched the consultation in 2012, direct letters were sent to 300 statutory and voluntary organisations, the majority of which did not reply. I have to say that I got better engagement from the children's sector than I did from the statutory sector, but, to be honest, I can understand that. Very few private Members' Bills get to this Stage, and even fewer pass. The Bill was probably not a priority for Departments or for the agencies consulted. They face a plethora of consultations, so maybe this was not a high priority for them. However, since the indications have been coming that OFMDFM and the Assembly are minded to support the Bill, at least in principle, the engagement has increased.”
“<BR /> <BR />Mr Nesbitt raised the issue of the four high-level outcomes in the child poverty strategy. I will reiterate what I said in my opening remarks: this is a Bill for all children. While it will encapsulate children in poverty, children with special educational needs and children with disabilities, it is not about targeting one section of children. It is about all children, and, in that regard, it differs from the child poverty strategy. I cannot answer for OFMDFM about the drafting of the child poverty strategy and why those four high-level outcomes were chosen, but the purpose of the Bill is to take in a wider range of children, including those in poverty but not exclusive to those in poverty. <BR /> <BR />Speaking as the Chair of the Committee, Mr Nesbitt also raised what he saw as a lack of engagement.”
“What do the outcomes mean? My understanding is that OFMDFM's intention in the new strategy is to better explain the outcomes and amend them if need be but to be more explicit about what the outcomes entail. In that regard, if need be, the Bill can be amended in line with policy changes. <BR /> <BR />Mr Wilson made a specific point about enjoying learning and achieving and whether the Department can be challenged over the failure of a child to enjoy school. Of course, not all children enjoy school, but it is a goal and an outcome, and the Bill requires cooperation in seeking to further the achievement of that outcome. It is not a requirement to achieve enjoying learning and achieving; it is a requirement to work together with that goal in mind. There is nothing in the Bill that is unreasonable in that regard.”
“I chose the six high-level outcomes to keep in line with current policy, but, as current policy develops, I am willing to develop the Bill in that direction.”
“The outcomes for children in care are all too commonly poor, and we need to look at ways of improving that. I believe that better joined-up working can do that. <BR /> <BR />Questions were raised about the high-level outcomes. I think that it was Mr Wilson who asked, "What do they mean"? The issue of what would happen as policy changed was also raised. There is, within the Bill, provision for the outcomes outlined in the Bill to be changed through order. I have also committed to engaging with OFMDFM as it develops the new strategy for children and young people. Should the Bill need to be amended to reflect new outcomes, where those come forward and, indeed, are agreed by the sector, I will be supportive of an amendment.”
“I spoke to its chief executive about the experience with the children's Bill in Scotland, where they brought in the statutory duty. Children were going up to Alex Salmond and saying, "You know you're my corporate parent". He had hundreds of children calling him daddy, which I am sure was a strange experience. I do not know how that translates over to Northern Ireland. Perhaps, it makes the Department of Education and the Department of Health the mother and father of children in care. I am not sure which is which, but given that both Ministers are men, perhaps we have our own civil partnership in government. However, the responsibility we have to children in care is a serious point. As I said before, the state acts as their parent. I do not think that a lack of joined-up working can be excused when it comes to those children's lives.”
“I hope and believe that this Bill, the work that Mr Lyttle is doing around children's budgeting and Mrs Overend's work are very much complementary. It is good to see Members putting such effort into improving outcomes for children in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />Mr Wilson raised the issue of children in care and asked how this would help, practically, with children in care. Sometimes, it is easier to point out where the failings are than where the improvements will be. Ultimately, we hope to stop getting reports that say that a lack of joined-up working failed our children. It is worth noting that the Voice of Young People in Care (VOYPIC) has been very supportive of the Bill, from the outset. It responded to the consultation and attended the recent launch.”
“She spoke of examples in her constituency in which constituents have come forward because they have fallen between two Departments and the lack of cooperation has failed them. I would be surprised if any Member had not had that experience. Certainly, I have had constituents with that experience. The most recent example concerned a child with special educational needs. The child's problems were recognised by the teachers, but they had to wait for statements, potentially, from the Department of Health, or an educational psychologist from the Department of Health. The delays between the Department of Education and the Department of Health led to real and tangible difficulties for the young person involved. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the work that Mrs Overend is doing in relation to Internet safety.”
“While Mr Wilson — he is not in his place at the moment — questioned some elements of the Bill, he said that the "silo mentality" was wasteful. That was a helpful intervention from a former Finance Minister who has scrutinised our public finances to that level, although compliments from me to Mr Wilson are rarely appreciated. <BR /> <BR />I appreciate that we must always be mindful of extra financial or bureaucratic burden, but I ask Members who have cited costs to investigate the evidence, because the evidence in England is that, where there has been cooperative working, particularly where there has been pooling of budgets, costs have reduced, efficiency has improved and the delivery of services for children has improved. <BR /> <BR />I have been asked about the practical outworkings of the Bill. Sandra Overend drew attention to it well.”
“These are the costs of not cooperating, and I outline them because, I suppose, of my heartfelt instinct that those children must be cared for. <BR /> <BR />There is no doubt that the financial costs of getting things wrong in a child's early life are immeasurable. Indeed, the economist Professor James Heckman estimates that having the same impact in adolescence would cost seven times more than early intervention. All the evidence for integrated working and cooperation shows that joined-up working decreases delays in the provision of services, meaning that we can intervene earlier when we cooperate better.”